Ethics
and intimacy in intergenerational relationships

‘First,
do no harm’

Since the mid-1990s, Ipce members have held discussions about ethics. I have
listened to the members. In this article, I will summarize the salient points of
several opinions I have heard.

Introduction

“Ipce
is a forum for people who are engaged in scholarly discussion about the
understanding and emancipation of mutual relationships between children or
adolescents and adults. In this context, these relationships are to be viewed
from an unbiased, non-judgmental perspective and in relation to the human
rights of both the young and adult partner.” (Ipce
Mission Statement)

Human
rights and a reasoned discussion are a fundamental basis for the following
ethical ideas about intergenerational relationships. One of these rights is that
of choice of contacts and relationships with other humans. Contact is necessary
for humans, and relationships can enrich life for both partners. This is the
basis of reasonable ethical thought about intergenerational relationships.

How
much intimacy a contact or relationship has is in the first place a free choice
for both partners. This may differ according to the individuals and the
situation. There is only one general rule or principle that counts in every
relationship: Do no harm.

But
there is more to say. What follows are no general rules, nor commandments on
tablets of stone for eternity, but guidelines or thoughts, points to take into
consideration, together with the local mores, laws and customs in a
given society and era.
The result, an ethical idea about an actual relationship, will differ with the
people and the situation.

In
the course of years, Ipce members have developed the following main guidelines
or principles.

Some main guidelines

Freedom
of choice

In any intergenerational relationship or contact
both partners, the adult as well as the young person, have it in their power to
regulate their own lives, their relationships and the grade of intimacy.
Each partner has the right to self-determination and the responsibility to
acknowledge this right in the other. Therefore, both partners in open
communication will choose the grade of intimacy at any moment.

In friendship relationships or contacts, both
partners have the freedom to withdraw from the relationship at any moment. Love
and dedication are unconditional; they bind partners who are free and
independent.

In dependency relationships or contacts, (such
as parent-child or teacher-pupil) love and dedication should also be
unconditional, but freedom to withdraw does not exist in practice. So, extra
attention should be given to the right to the self-determination and
responsibility of both partners. Here, the grade of intimacy has two limits:
complete distance is not possible nor wanted, complete intimacy will interfere
with the dependency: complete intimacy asks for complete freedom, which does not
exist in dependency relationships.

The
grade of openness

Openness is a typical western value; many other
cultures respect and maintain secrets. Openness within a relationship is a good
value. Openness to the parents is strongly recommended.

Openness to others is a good value as long as they respect one's right to
self-determination. So, openness to others may be good, but it is not always
necessary and not always possible. For example, intimacy between males is still
a great taboo, for instance, in most schoolyards. Or, in many families, the very
existence of any form of sexual life in a young person is taboo.

Many young people prefer consciously to have their own
secrets. They make their own choices and do not want to be protected. ‘Don’t
treat me as a child’, they say. It is their right to have this freedom, the
freedom to say no and the freedom to say yes. There is also a
right of privacy.
The other side of the coin is that young people should not have to carry too
heavy or unreasonable secrets. One has to take into consideration how the young
person lives and how his environment may react.

Do
no harm

Harm can come from feelings of shame and dirtiness,
learned from society. Harm can come from a society that uses power or violence
to force the end of a relationship. One should consider this risk, as well as
the risk of blackmail. The adult as well as the young person is vulnerable in
this society nowadays.

Concluding remarks

My
conclusion, and that of several members, is that intimacy in intergenerational
relationships in our society nowadays, has the risk to harm both partners -
perhaps not through the relationship itself, but by society's reaction to it.
Taking this into consideration, I suppose that such intimacy, maybe ethically
correct in itself, will be quite uncommon these days.

‘Platonic’
relationships may be a reasonable choice, but these relationships still include
the hidden implication that sex is dirty and taboo.

Not
only young gays and lesbians, but also young people in a phase of hetero- or
homosexuality, need relationships to explore their orientation and to develop
self-knowledge and self-respect. It is their right to have them. They do not
deserve rejection. Harm may result from a relationship and society’s reaction
to it. Harm is also possible by rejection and by not having relationships at
all. One should as honestly as possible estimate if any harm might arise. The
leading principle remains Do no harm.

Every
person and situation is different. Young people change in the course of their
development from child to adult. Use your own best judgment and that of your
partner in any individual case.

Related articles

Gieles, Frans, Warmth
and intimacy, how about them? Published and reprinted since 1983 in
Dutch magazine and book.
Child care workers wish to give the children a warm relationship and a climate
of intimacy. But how is that possible? In their work in the daily life situation
there are so many conflict situations. How can they handle conflicts and create
a warm relationship and a good climate with the same children? These questions
are answered from an action research project in which journals of child care
workers are written, analyzed and discussed with the workers. The gap between
workers and children can be bridged, and warmth and intimacy are possible if..

Gieles, F.E.J., "I didn't know how to deal with it", Young people speak out
about their sexual contacts with adults, translated from the Dutch NVSH Lwg JORis
Newsletter, april 1998.

Ree, Frank van, Intimate
relationships between young people and adults - Are there criteria for a
positive experience? KOINOS MAGAZINE #24 (1999/4)
Both sexual abuse of children and consensual love relationships between young
people and adults are found in all cultures and in all periods of history.
Although research statistics show otherwise, at present the notion has taken
hold in many countries that a difference in age inevitably results in damaging
consequences. Some time ago, an extensive exchange of ideas took place in the
newsletter published by the National Workgroup JORis (Younger-Older
Relationships, intimacy, sexuality) of the Dutch Association for Sexual Reform (NVSH),
about the criteria which an intimate relationship with a young person must meet
in order to preclude harm at a later age, based on positions which had been
formulated earlier by the Danish Pedophile Association. Remedial educationalist
Dr. Frans Gieles took the position in this discussion that in the present
situation adults should act with restraint in pedophile and ephebophile
relationships, because they bear the responsibility also for the damage which
social rejection (whether or not after the fact) can bring about. We asked the
retired Dutch psychiatrist Dr. Frank van Ree about his view of this. Dr. Van Ree
has written many publications and doesn't shy away from taking an independent
position. As this article shows, he has passed on this way of thinking to his
children as well.

Rind, Bruce,
PhD., Gay
and Bisexual Adolescent Boys' Sexual Experiences With Men:
An Empirical Examination of Psychological Correlates in a Nonclinical Sample,
In: Archives of Sexual Behavior, Vol. 30, No.4, 2001
Over the last quarter century the incest model, with its image of helpless
victims exploited and traumatized by powerful perpetrators, has come to dominate
perceptions of virtually all forms of adult-minor sex. Thus, even willing sexual
relations between gay or bisexual adolescent boys and adult men, which differ
from father-daughter incest in many important ways, are generally seen by the
lay public and professionals as traumatizing and psychologically injurious. This
study assessed this common perception by examining a nonclinical, mostly college
sample of gay and bisexual men.
[From the Appendix:]
"It developed over time and was great. We became friends and I invited him
over once when my parents weren't home. I practically had to force sex on him
because he was afraid about losing his job. Ended when I went away for the
summer and he wasn't a teacher at my school no more"